Laserfiche WebLink
Response- The operator will not mine the 6.2 acre creosote <br /> contaminated site. The creosote contamination, according to the <br /> EPA, no longer exists at the surface since the area was cleaned up <br /> several years ago. The creosote contamination, if any, lies below the <br /> surface. Since the surface of the site no longer contains any creosote <br /> contamination, and because the operator is not going to mine the <br /> area(thereby, not exposing any creosote contaminated materials), <br /> the probability that the excavating activities near the creosote <br /> contaminated site will adversely affect the health of the adjoining <br /> landowner is extremely small. <br /> 19. Amendment 1 of the Permit, approved by the Division on November 19, 1998, <br /> clearly states that a condition of the Permit is to not mine or excavate within the <br /> 6.2-acre creosote contamination site. <br /> 20. The Mine's current financial warranty is $143,158. The Mine's current <br /> financial warranty is insufficient given the current conditions present at the <br /> Mine. <br /> 21. On March 16, 2023, the Division issued a Reason to Believe a Violation Exists <br /> and Notice of Board hearing letter via certified mail ("RTB") to Butala <br /> Construction for the following alleged violation: <br /> a. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-124(1) of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act for <br /> the Extraction of Construction Materials for failure to comply with condition <br /> of a Permit. <br /> 22. The RTB was originally set for consideration by the Board on April 19-20, 2023. <br /> However, this matter was subsequently continued to the May 17-18, 2023, <br /> hearing. <br /> Agreement- Permit Violations and Penalty <br /> 23. Butala Construction is in violation of C.R.S. § 34-32.5-124 for failure to comply <br /> with the conditions of Reclamation Permit No. M-1977.170. <br /> 24.Under section 34.32.5.116(4)(h), C.R.S., operators are required to minimize <br /> disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the <br /> surrounding area and to the quantity or quality of water in surface and <br /> groundwater systems both during and after the mining operation and during <br /> reclamation. The Operator failed to minimize the disturbance to the quality of <br /> water in the surface water system by allowing the discharge of water in excess of <br /> 4 <br />